Nielsen recently released its “Three Screen Report” covering television, Internet and mobile phone usage and by an overwhelming volume in the third quarter of 2008, watching TV eclipsed Internet usage and mobile phone usage, and TV viewing was at an all-time high.
Household monthly time spent watching TV was over 142 hours, watching time-shifted television accounted for over six hours, up 34.5% versus last year. Internet time accounted for a “mere” twenty-seven hours plus, but this was up 42% versus the prior year (and according to Nielsen, this includes both work and home use — I guess a lot of people aren’t slaves to the Internet at their jobs — I just don’t know any of these people).
Nielsen is also now tracking time spent watching video on the Internet — and pegged it at just over two and a half hours a month.
Surprisingly to me, it pegs mobile video viewing at three hours and thirty seven minutes a month. I didn’t dig deep into what’s being measured, but I think the reason that the number for mobile video viewing is higher than Internet video viewing is because video is measured across everyone, and the mobile video viewing is only measured among mobile subscribers who watch mobile video.
TV viewing is up five hours a month versus last year, and the percentage of homes with DVRs has now grown to 27% and is rising.
You can download (PDF) the full report summary.
The numbers aren’t as important as the trends, IMHO. Sure, people still watch TV more than the watch ‘net vid or mobile phone. But those percentage increases for time-shifting and ‘net viewing are pretty darn big.
For instance, as a Nielsen I may be counted as “watching TV” nearly 12 hours a day on Sundays. By “watch TV,” I mean the set is on, I’m checking game scores as I pass through en route to the grocery store, the laundry room, the kitchen, and so on….check the news at lunch, check the weather forecast, yadda yadda yadda. It’s even on as background while I surf the web. Are these “viewing hours?” Why, if I’m not really watching?
(BTW, we don’t have People Meters in my neck of the woods. Old-style meters and diaries would be used. I don’t know what buttons I’d have to push on the meter to validate that yes, I was watching. In a diary, I’d write that I watched the Steelers game even if I wasn’t enganged in viewing every minute of it.)
So long as it’s in the realm of 142 hours to TWO it’s not reasonable to discuss them in the same sense, regardless of how they are measured. The trends for that will be up for years to come, and on a percentage basis high for quite some time because the numbers are small.
Diaries are not used much for measurement these days outside of sweeps. Clutz, your bias against nielsen measurement is duly noted. but given the gap, even if 50% of the TV viewing time isn’t watched, it’s still not worth discussing Internet video viewing in the same breath as TV viewing. It’s just not very important yet (as a revenue stream).
Robert, outside of the metered markets, diaries are all that’s used. And even in metered markets they are often still used for local ratings. (Miami just switched over, and we’re in the top 20, so I imagine most of the markets between 56th and 17th are still using diaries.) But if you are referring to national ratings only, then, yes, you are correct.
since we only deal with national ratings here… I’ve seen no evidence that the diaries are impactful on the aggregate numbers at all.
But it’s surprising/interesting to me that Nielsen uses diaries for local markets *in* markets where there are people meters.
Well, the sample size for the local ratings is larger than the sample size that contributes to the national ratings from that market. The expense involved in hooking up the local ratings sample is not necessarily worth it, especially since TV stations do not want to switch. My brother complained about it to me when his market switched two years ago, and I just spoke to someone last week who was complaining about Miami’s switch. For whatever reason, the ratings plummet in local markets when they switch to People Meters.
Actually, my math might be wrong on how many households contribute to the local ratings, but I’m pretty sure I’m right there. But it probably just depends on the market.
For whatever reason, the ratings plummet in local markets when they switch to People Meters.
that seems like a pretty big deal, whatever the cause. I’m surprised there isn’t more public uproar over it if it is more or less universally true.
It’s just anecdotal evidence, so I don’t know if it’s universally true, but I can definitely understand why the local stations would be resistant to change even if it’s just a possibility.
I’m in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. We do not have local people meters. They’re set to begin rolling those out in our market in 2009.
I guess I wasn’t referring to the 2 Internet video hours, more the 6 or so time-shifted hours. Example: I have my TV turned on 142 hours a month. I actually “watch” about 24 of those hours. Of the 24 hours I watch, 8 are time-shifted. I know I’m abnormal, but I’m still an example of a modern viewer
.
I think it’s important to note that if the “same” six hours a month that are always time-shifte (e.g. Tuesdays at 10pm EST live timeslot) – that is probably more active participation in the viewing than, say, the 48 hours of live football and hockey per month.
clutz, unfortunately without chips planted in the brain — or something that at least communicates directly with the brain, there is no way to easily know. Without it being possible to know, it’s pure speculation. I suspect you’re right, but there’s such a wide range of possibilities, what would matter is “to what degree are you right,” and without extensive and expensive research we’re not likely to find that out. The TV networks certainly won’t commission that study!
Robert, I have the same general frustration with STB data plans. Although they have advantages in sample size and to-the-second data, these systems still are based on assumptions. When the set-top box is tuned in, it’s up to the data crunchers to assume who was watching – if anyone. Paper diaries (or online diaries) can be used to back up the data, obtain demographic information, and so on. But then we’re right back to the “zero cell” issue when panelists forget to complete their diaries.
Still, I think it’s in the Broadcast Networks’ and Nielsen’s best interest to convince people that their system is the only one that matters. I believe they’ll take any chance they get to calm the questions raised by advertisers regarding DVR, Web video, downloads, etc… I’m getting the “go away people, nothing to see here” vibe from Nielsen in particular.
The Nets and Nielsen need to keep people buying!
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996347.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1
clutz, I saw that Variety article and queued it up to write something about later this week when I might have more time. It’s the first time I think I’ve read something in the trade press, particularly Variety, that was pretty thoughtful on the future options of the broadcast television networks.
Bill, I figure you gentlemen saw the article already, as you and Robert are always on top of things in the trades! I hope broadcast networks not only survive, but find new ways to thrive. Does this mean more repeats of popular series, more sports in prime time, cutting out the 10 p.m. hour (like Fox)? Maybe. I have my doubts that repeating the mantra “People Still Watch TV” will fly much longer with advertisers,no matter how true the mantra may be.
clutz, I will save my (probably limited!) gunpowder for the post. Look for it later in the week.